From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Seaman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California
Nov 29, 2011
No. C 99-1231 MEJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011)

Opinion

No. C 99-1231 MEJ

11-29-2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DEBRA SEAMAN, Defendant.


ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S

CLAIM OF EXEMPTION

In June 1999, a default judgment was entered against Defendant Debra Seaman in a student loan debt collection action in the amount of $6,452.01. On October 24, 2011, Plaintiff moved for a writ of continuing garnishment, which the Court ordered on November 2, 2011. Plaintiff has now filed an "Objection to Garnishee's Answer and Request for Hearing." In her request, Plaintiff states that the debt has been mis-characterized because she understood it to be a grant, not a loan. Plaintiff states that her prison counselor informed her that the funding was a grant for cosmetology school, and that she would not have to repay it.

"A court may issue a writ of garnishment against property (including nonexempt disposable earnings) in which the debtor has a substantial nonexempt interest and which is in the possession, custody, or control of a person other than the debtor, in order to satisfy the judgment against the debtor." 28 U.S.C. § 3205(a). The garnishee is required to answer a writ of garnishment within 10 days of service of the writ. 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(2), (4). A judgment debtor or the United States may "file a written objection to the answer of a garnishee and request a hearing." 28 U.S.C. § 2805(c)(5). Similarly, the United States or the debtor "may request a hearing on the applicability of any exemption claimed by the debtor." 28 U.S.C. § 3014(b)(2). A judgment debtor that claims exemption from a writ of garnishment bears the burden of proving that she is entitled to the exemption. 28 U.S.C. § 3014(b)(2).

Here, the fact that Defendant believes her loan was a grant is insufficient to establish an exemption. "It is well established, in the absence of fraud, overreaching or excusable neglect, that one who signs an instrument may not avoid the impact of its terms on the grounds that he failed to read the instrument before signing it." RONDAS v Y.M.C.A. of Metropolitan, 17 Cal App 4th 158, 163 (1993) (citing Hulsev v. Elsinore Parachute Center, 168 Cal. App. 3d 333, 339 (1985)). Further, while the Court is sympathetic to Defendant's financial plight, poverty does not constitute a defense to a writ of garnishment. United States v. McGhee, 2007 WL 4326807, *1 (E.D. Mich. 2007). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant's request.

However, the Court recognizes that what started as a $2,652.33 student loan debt has increased to over $10,000, and Defendant has shown that her financial situation presents a hardship in terms of payments on the debt. According, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet to determine whether the government is amenable to working out a reasonable payment plan going forward. In addition, if the government has discretion to waive any of the accrued interest on Defendant's loan, or if the government can waive part of the debt based on financial hardship, it shall attempt to do so. The government shall provide Defendant any necessary forms and instructions to make a request for a hardship waiver. Defendant should be mindful that this Order in no way excuses her from any debt obligations already incurred, unless the government grants a waiver. And, to avoid possible future garnishments, Defendant would be well served by working with the government to ensure payment of her debt.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Maria-Elena James

Chief United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

USA, Plaintiff,

v.

SEAMAN, Defendant.

Case Number: CV99-01231 MAG

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.

That on November 29, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Debra Seaman

1526 Hudson St

San Francisco, CA 94124

Dated: November 29, 2011

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Brenda Tolbert, Deputy Clerk


Summaries of

United States v. Seaman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California
Nov 29, 2011
No. C 99-1231 MEJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011)
Case details for

United States v. Seaman

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DEBRA SEAMAN, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California

Date published: Nov 29, 2011

Citations

No. C 99-1231 MEJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011)